-
CVE-2025-71292
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
jfs: nlink overflow in jfs_rename
If nlink is maximal for a directory (-1) and inside that directory you
perform a rename for some child directory (not moving from the parent),
then the nlink of the first directory is first incremented and later
decremented. Normally this is fine, but when nlink = -1 this causes a
wrap around to 0, and then drop_nlink issues a warning.
After applying the patch syzbot no longer issues any warnings. I also
ran some basic fs tests to look for any regressions.
-
CVE-2025-71292
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
jfs: nlink overflow in jfs_rename
If nlink is maximal for a directory (-1) and inside that directory you
perform a rename for some child directory (not moving from the parent),
then the nlink of the first directory is first incremented and later
decremented. Normally this is fine, but when nlink = -1 this causes a
wrap around to 0, and then drop_nlink issues a warning.
After applying the patch syzbot no longer issues any warnings. I also
ran some basic fs tests to look for any regressions.
-
CVE-2025-71292
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
jfs: nlink overflow in jfs_rename
If nlink is maximal for a directory (-1) and inside that directory you
perform a rename for some child directory (not moving from the parent),
then the nlink of the first directory is first incremented and later
decremented. Normally this is fine, but when nlink = -1 this causes a
wrap around to 0, and then drop_nlink issues a warning.
After applying the patch syzbot no longer issues any warnings. I also
ran some basic fs tests to look for any regressions.
-
CVE-2025-71292
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
jfs: nlink overflow in jfs_rename
If nlink is maximal for a directory (-1) and inside that directory you
perform a rename for some child directory (not moving from the parent),
then the nlink of the first directory is first incremented and later
decremented. Normally this is fine, but when nlink = -1 this causes a
wrap around to 0, and then drop_nlink issues a warning.
After applying the patch syzbot no longer issues any warnings. I also
ran some basic fs tests to look for any regressions.
-
CVE-2025-71292
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
jfs: nlink overflow in jfs_rename
If nlink is maximal for a directory (-1) and inside that directory you
perform a rename for some child directory (not moving from the parent),
then the nlink of the first directory is first incremented and later
decremented. Normally this is fine, but when nlink = -1 this causes a
wrap around to 0, and then drop_nlink issues a warning.
After applying the patch syzbot no longer issues any warnings. I also
ran some basic fs tests to look for any regressions.
-
CVE-2025-71292
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
jfs: nlink overflow in jfs_rename
If nlink is maximal for a directory (-1) and inside that directory you
perform a rename for some child directory (not moving from the parent),
then the nlink of the first directory is first incremented and later
decremented. Normally this is fine, but when nlink = -1 this causes a
wrap around to 0, and then drop_nlink issues a warning.
After applying the patch syzbot no longer issues any warnings. I also
ran some basic fs tests to look for any regressions.
-
CVE-2025-71292
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
jfs: nlink overflow in jfs_rename
If nlink is maximal for a directory (-1) and inside that directory you
perform a rename for some child directory (not moving from the parent),
then the nlink of the first directory is first incremented and later
decremented. Normally this is fine, but when nlink = -1 this causes a
wrap around to 0, and then drop_nlink issues a warning.
After applying the patch syzbot no longer issues any warnings. I also
ran some basic fs tests to look for any regressions.
-
CVE-2025-71292
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
jfs: nlink overflow in jfs_rename
If nlink is maximal for a directory (-1) and inside that directory you
perform a rename for some child directory (not moving from the parent),
then the nlink of the first directory is first incremented and later
decremented. Normally this is fine, but when nlink = -1 this causes a
wrap around to 0, and then drop_nlink issues a warning.
After applying the patch syzbot no longer issues any warnings. I also
ran some basic fs tests to look for any regressions.
-
CVE-2025-71292
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
jfs: nlink overflow in jfs_rename
If nlink is maximal for a directory (-1) and inside that directory you
perform a rename for some child directory (not moving from the parent),
then the nlink of the first directory is first incremented and later
decremented. Normally this is fine, but when nlink = -1 this causes a
wrap around to 0, and then drop_nlink issues a warning.
After applying the patch syzbot no longer issues any warnings. I also
ran some basic fs tests to look for any regressions.
-
CVE-2025-71292
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
jfs: nlink overflow in jfs_rename
If nlink is maximal for a directory (-1) and inside that directory you
perform a rename for some child directory (not moving from the parent),
then the nlink of the first directory is first incremented and later
decremented. Normally this is fine, but when nlink = -1 this causes a
wrap around to 0, and then drop_nlink issues a warning.
After applying the patch syzbot no longer issues any warnings. I also
ran some basic fs tests to look for any regressions.
-
CVE-2025-71292
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
jfs: nlink overflow in jfs_rename
If nlink is maximal for a directory (-1) and inside that directory you
perform a rename for some child directory (not moving from the parent),
then the nlink of the first directory is first incremented and later
decremented. Normally this is fine, but when nlink = -1 this causes a
wrap around to 0, and then drop_nlink issues a warning.
After applying the patch syzbot no longer issues any warnings. I also
ran some basic fs tests to look for any regressions.
-
CVE-2025-71292
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
jfs: nlink overflow in jfs_rename
If nlink is maximal for a directory (-1) and inside that directory you
perform a rename for some child directory (not moving from the parent),
then the nlink of the first directory is first incremented and later
decremented. Normally this is fine, but when nlink = -1 this causes a
wrap around to 0, and then drop_nlink issues a warning.
After applying the patch syzbot no longer issues any warnings. I also
ran some basic fs tests to look for any regressions.
-
CVE-2025-71292
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
jfs: nlink overflow in jfs_rename
If nlink is maximal for a directory (-1) and inside that directory you
perform a rename for some child directory (not moving from the parent),
then the nlink of the first directory is first incremented and later
decremented. Normally this is fine, but when nlink = -1 this causes a
wrap around to 0, and then drop_nlink issues a warning.
After applying the patch syzbot no longer issues any warnings. I also
ran some basic fs tests to look for any regressions.
-
CVE-2025-71292
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
jfs: nlink overflow in jfs_rename
If nlink is maximal for a directory (-1) and inside that directory you
perform a rename for some child directory (not moving from the parent),
then the nlink of the first directory is first incremented and later
decremented. Normally this is fine, but when nlink = -1 this causes a
wrap around to 0, and then drop_nlink issues a warning.
After applying the patch syzbot no longer issues any warnings. I also
ran some basic fs tests to look for any regressions.
-
CVE-2025-71292
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
jfs: nlink overflow in jfs_rename
If nlink is maximal for a directory (-1) and inside that directory you
perform a rename for some child directory (not moving from the parent),
then the nlink of the first directory is first incremented and later
decremented. Normally this is fine, but when nlink = -1 this causes a
wrap around to 0, and then drop_nlink issues a warning.
After applying the patch syzbot no longer issues any warnings. I also
ran some basic fs tests to look for any regressions.
-
CVE-2025-71292
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
jfs: nlink overflow in jfs_rename
If nlink is maximal for a directory (-1) and inside that directory you
perform a rename for some child directory (not moving from the parent),
then the nlink of the first directory is first incremented and later
decremented. Normally this is fine, but when nlink = -1 this causes a
wrap around to 0, and then drop_nlink issues a warning.
After applying the patch syzbot no longer issues any warnings. I also
ran some basic fs tests to look for any regressions.
-
CVE-2025-71292
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
jfs: nlink overflow in jfs_rename
If nlink is maximal for a directory (-1) and inside that directory you
perform a rename for some child directory (not moving from the parent),
then the nlink of the first directory is first incremented and later
decremented. Normally this is fine, but when nlink = -1 this causes a
wrap around to 0, and then drop_nlink issues a warning.
After applying the patch syzbot no longer issues any warnings. I also
ran some basic fs tests to look for any regressions.
-
CVE-2025-71292
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
jfs: nlink overflow in jfs_rename
If nlink is maximal for a directory (-1) and inside that directory you
perform a rename for some child directory (not moving from the parent),
then the nlink of the first directory is first incremented and later
decremented. Normally this is fine, but when nlink = -1 this causes a
wrap around to 0, and then drop_nlink issues a warning.
After applying the patch syzbot no longer issues any warnings. I also
ran some basic fs tests to look for any regressions.
-
CVE-2025-71291
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
misc: bcm_vk: Fix possible null-pointer dereferences in bcm_vk_read()
In the function bcm_vk_read(), the pointer entry is checked, indicating
that it can be NULL. If entry is NULL and rc is set to -EMSGSIZE, the
following code may cause null-pointer dereferences:
struct vk_msg_blk tmp_msg = entry-to_h_msg[0];
set_msg_id(&tmp_msg, entry->usr_msg_id);
tmp_msg.size = entry->to_h_blks - 1;
To prevent these possible null-pointer dereferences, copy to_h_msg,
usr_msg_id, and to_h_blks from iter into temporary variables, and return
these temporary variables to the application instead of accessing them
through a potentially NULL entry.
-
CVE-2025-71291
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
misc: bcm_vk: Fix possible null-pointer dereferences in bcm_vk_read()
In the function bcm_vk_read(), the pointer entry is checked, indicating
that it can be NULL. If entry is NULL and rc is set to -EMSGSIZE, the
following code may cause null-pointer dereferences:
struct vk_msg_blk tmp_msg = entry-to_h_msg[0];
set_msg_id(&tmp_msg, entry->usr_msg_id);
tmp_msg.size = entry->to_h_blks - 1;
To prevent these possible null-pointer dereferences, copy to_h_msg,
usr_msg_id, and to_h_blks from iter into temporary variables, and return
these temporary variables to the application instead of accessing them
through a potentially NULL entry.
